Old friend turns born again

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's an analogy but it's similar with the Christians. Different forms of communication present their friend with different options. By being a bit considerate, they can achieve objectives but in a considerate respectful way.

Unfortunately the heavy christians don't get this, because ironically they don't think about other people's perspectives that much.

Get it?

I don't disagree with this. I think bombarding someone with stuff is a poor method of communication. There are ways to communicate. Some are better than others at it. Would I be correct in saying that you agree that its ok for the christian friend to talk about his new found faith, but its the manner of delivery? If so, I agree with you. However, if the friend is over-zealous, I think a good friend would just be honest.

To go back to your smokers analogy. If I was the host of the party, and the smoker said, 'do you mind if I smoke'. I'd have no problem just saying, 'No problem, just not in the house'. I wouldn't feel awkward etc, because a friend knows me, and I him. I agree that smoker 3 is the most considerate, and that approach is the ideal. But going on about 'rights' or 'social norms' etc is way OTT, IMO.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

If he deposited the cash in my account without even asking me, I would have a problem with that.

If his motivation was good, you'd have a problem with his gesture? Harsh, to say the least. Than again, I don't believe you. 'You fecker, putting half a million in my account without my permission. How very dare you'. Do you do the same if someone gives you a gift without first asking you if they can give you one?

To attempt to convince someone that your religion is the right one, when they haven't even broached the topic, is rude at least. I would consider it the domain of scumbags - preachers and the like. But that's just me.

No bother. A moment ago you said it was the social norm. If thats how you feel, then so be it. I still think you are being dramatic though. But hey ho. 'Scumbags - preachers and the like.' LOL:D My word.

Asking someone about their religion, yes it is against social norms. Do you routinely query everyone on their religious beliefs?

No I don't. But I don't view it as taboo. I'm not afraid to broach the subject. There are times when I'm out when we talk about nothing but spiritual things. There are times when I'm out that we never talk about it. Such is friendship, we all know each other and feel we can talk openly about our differring opinions. No one has ever brought 'rights' or 'social norms' into it. We are just friends talking about things that matter to us at any particular time.

What a good christian fails to realise that unless you ask the question, "Would you like me to share this pot of gold with you?", then he can expect people to become offended when he starts jabbing gold coins into the unlucky recipient's eye.

Like I said in my response to TR, you've hit upon the manner of communication, not what is being communicated.

What you fail to understand is that you don't have any pot of gold. You have a rainbow which promises a large leprechaun and a pot of gold at the end, but you have no means of verifying that the gold, or the leprechaun or the end of the rainbow actually exist.

Now I think we're getting somewhere. There you have your current stance on it. So just communicate it to your friend and either discuss it, or tell him never to bring it up again for whatever reason. Simple and not a thespian in sight.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

This is the bit you are missing. If you tell the friend to stop and explain why etc, and he doesn't. Then fair enough. If you don't say anything, but just whinge about it to others, I think thats a poor decision on your part. He is alledgedly a friend afterall. Can't you just speak openly? Can't you have empathy to what this friend is doing? Can't you understand that this friend feels like he has something to give you? If you don't tell him you don't want it, why complain about the friend who thinks he's giving you a gift?

You sound like Smoker number 2.

Yes, regularly. When I was in a hurry, I'd say 'Sorry, I'm in a rush'. I wouldn't go home a tell my wife I've been harassed though. Or whine about Muslims harassing me. Whatever the group, I'd often engage with them. It takes courage to approach people in the streets. If I can, I'll stop and chat. Be them atheists, Muslims or whatever. As I said, I think you are just a little dramatic.

I speak to them Jimi but what I am trying to explain is the validity in being irrated. You seem to think there is no validity in being irritated. Would smoker 2 annoy you?

seamus

If his motivation was good, you'd have a problem with his gesture? Harsh, to say the least.

I didn't say I'd refuse it, but I'd definitely wonder WTF he was doing just giving me any amount of money without even talking to me first. I certainly wouldn't just dump any amount of money in someone else's account with asking them, and I'd expect the same of everyone else.

JimiTime wrote: »

No bother. A moment ago you said it was the social norm.

It is, hence why the action would be "rude, at least".

Now I think we're getting somewhere. There you have your current stance on it. So just communicate it to your friend and either discuss it, or tell him never to bring it up again for whatever reason. Simple and not a thespian in sight.

You still don't understand. I shouldn't have to outline my personal stance from the start. Basic respect for someone else should assume that they have no wish to hear your personal feelings on a subject, be it religious, political, moral or ethical. You should ask their permission before assuming that they want to hear it.

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You sound like Smoker number 2.

As I said, smoker number 2 doesn't bother me. He communicates, I communicate. Simple. I am happy that my friend doesn't walk on egg shells with me, and I don't walk on egg shells with him.

Smoker 2: Hey J, you mind if I have a smoke.
J. Not at all, just not in the house.

Notice that I don't then whinge to my other friends about how inconsiderate he was for not just going outside in the first place. We are all grown ups, and a simple communication occurred.

I speak to them Jimi but what I am trying to explain is the validity in being irrated. You seem to think there is no validity in being irritated. Would smoker 2 annoy you?

Not in the slightest. Now if I told him, yeah, just not in the house and he lit up in the house. Then we have a problem.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

To go back to your smokers analogy. If I was the host of the party, and the smoker said, 'do you mind if I smoke'. I'd have no problem just saying, 'No problem, just not in the house'. I wouldn't feel awkward etc, because a friend knows me, and I him. I agree that smoker 3 is the most considerate, and that approach is the ideal. But going on about 'rights' or 'social norms' etc is way OTT, IMO.

This is difference between us Jimi. I differentiate between number 2 and 3.
I find number 2 annoying. There's something irritating with people who put you in a situation in where you have to actively refuse them.

It's like people who have Weddings abroad and think nothing of it. They think sure if people don't want to go or can't afford it all they have to do it say No.

But what they don't realise is that some (granted not all) people might find saying No very very awkard. It doesn't matter if that awkardness is valid or not, they fact is they do. A more conscientious person wouldn't have a wedding abroad or would try to get their friends feelings on it before considering it.

Reverting back to christianity, an effective way to communicate the Christian deeds is to do remarkable deeds. For example, Fr. Peter McVerry and all the work he does for homeless people. He has dedicated his life to altruism because of his Christian faith. He rarely bible bashes but he will communicate alrusim and if he's pressed or questioned about that, he'll them communicate his Christian faith.

Sadly, the really head recking Christians, care nothing about altruism. In some cases, they think their beliefs are more important than someone starving. Their faith is almost a selfish thing, it's like look at me I'm great because I have Jesus, you could be great like me, if you believe what I believe.

How arrogant and stupid is that?

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said, smoker number 2 doesn't bother me.

But would you not agree that smoker number 3 is being more conscientious?

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

I didn't say I'd refuse it, but I'd definitely wonder WTF he was doing just giving me any amount of money without even talking to me first. I certainly wouldn't just dump any amount of money in someone else's account with asking them, and I'd expect the same of everyone else.

Friend gives other friend half his lotto winnings. Friend has big problem as his permission wasn't sought. As I said, Harsh. Personally, If I accepted the money I'd be thankful, I'd be happy for the friend. I'd be delighted that I was thought of so highly. None of the above would change if I didn't accept it. I certainly wouldn't have an issue with him not optaining my permission. Then again, I don't believe you'd be either. You are just trying to undermine the analogy. Thats fine, you don't feel empathy for the scenario. I think you are a drama queen. Such is life.

You still don't understand.

What I understand, is that you are taking your limited social interaction and calling it the social norm. This social norm means that you must ask permission before giving big gifts, and also each converstion should start with a reconasance mission to determine the sensitivities of the person. This goes for friends too.

I shouldn't have to outline my personal stance from the start. Basic respect for someone else should assume that they have no wish to hear your personal feelings on a subject, be it religious, political, moral or ethical.

I respect my family. I respect my friends. I respect most people. I have no problem with people expressing their opinions. Maybe I just move in social circles that don't feel confined to these 'norms'. I can tell you though, what you describe is highly abnormal to me and most of my social network. Be them Christians, atheists, buddhists etc. Its quite nice to have the freedom and security to be able to discuss things openly. Maybe you should examine why these subjects so offend you. And why you insist on calling your taboo's the social Norm.

You should ask their permission before assuming that they want to hear it.

As I said, I would not consider that normal. I also think its quite simple, if you are an honest secure person, to just tell your friend honestly you don't want to talk about it. No need for the dramatics. If he is persistant, then you have a point. But all this 'social norms' rights' 'permission to speak' is nonsense. Its friends for flip sake. Get over it!

jim o doom

JimiTime wrote: »

You are comparing this to a 'friend' who feels like he'd like to share a gift with you? As I said earlier, you need to understand the friend a bit more. Would you have an issue with a friend who won the lotto and wanted to share his winnings? Or would you see him as a good friend. Even if you did not accept the share, would you not still see the motivation behind the offer?


Just dramatic IMO. Its certainly is not a 'social norm' to not talk about things. You are saying spiritual things are taboo are they? To speak about things like this is against 'civility' is it?
LOL. Such drama. 'Social boundaries'.ROFL.


to take both points. (a) friend offers money, you either respond negatively or don't respond (which is negative in itself) friend continues to constantly offer you money/gift. Makes you feel like a pauper; friend is ignorant for continuing in this fashion.

point b, about the social norm? Me and my large group of close friends, i.e. minimum of about 10 to 15 people I would regard as very close mates, been through thick & thin and can talk about anything, also my fiancee, been with her for 7 years; none of us EVER talk about religion. Why? because we don't believe in it, we might as well talk about fairies. So is it a SOCIAL NORM? not for people who are not religious. LIKE THE OP. it might be normal for all you holy types, and that's great, talk about it amonst yourselves. But forcing it on someone who has no interest is exactly that. Forcing it. ON someone who doesn't want it and has NO interest & in all likelyhood never will.

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

Then again, I don't believe you'd be either.

That's your perogative. Luckily I don't need you to believe me. Your analogy is weak anyway because it assumes that the lottery winnings exist.

What I understand, is that you are taking your limited social interaction and calling it the social norm.

:rolleyes: Yes, I must be the problem because I don't like people telling me how to live my life.

This social norm means that you must ask permission before giving big gifts, and also each converstion should start with a reconasance mission to determine the sensitivities of the person. This goes for friends too.

I never said that. I have no problem if someone says, "So, what does anyone think of the new Pope?". This is introducing the topic and giving people the opportunity to step in or out. However, simply going off and starting to tell people all about what they should think of the new Pope, is an entirely different matter and is 100% ignorant of everyone else around you.

Its quite nice to have the freedom and security to be able to discuss things openly.

Absolutley it is. I have no idea where you made the leap from, "Don't shove things down my throat" to, "Don't discuss religion". I never said you don't discuss religion. I simply said that you don't go off on a tirade or attempt to convert anyone unless they're receptive to it. Imagine every time you met a friend his parting words were, completely seriously, "Stop believing in God. You know it's all a big pile of crap. Turn atheist and start enjoying life.", you wouldn't be the least bit taken aback and upset that he thought it was OK to say that out of the blue?

If he is persistant, then you have a point. But all this 'social norms' rights' 'permission to speak' is nonsense. Its friends for flip sake. Get over it!

Luckily I've never had to deal with such a friend. I can't imagine myself being able to have a friend who did act like that. All of my friends are very firmly aligned in the "I don't give a ****" category so the topic of religion rarely comes up.

jim o doom

To follow on to the 2nd point; the OP and his friends have been friends for a long time, and making an assumption; there probably wasn't much talk of religion back then. That means the friends KNOWS the OP isn't interested in religion. They are FRIENDS, lets not forget this right? That means his friend should know what topics of conversation are on or off the table. My ma died a few years back, did any of my mates make a single "yore ma" joke or even talk about for 2 or 3 years? no, not until I broached the subject, because they are my friends and know what is acceptable to talk about. If two people are strangers & 1 wanted to talk to the otehr about faith in general, damn right he should ask if it's acceptable. When I am approached by someone religious on the street, I simply inform them that I am not religious, and they leave me alone, because it's polite. This guys mate shouldn't need to be told to stop, but clearly that's what needs to happen. Anyone with a good friend, christian or otherwise; will know when they are talking about something their friend doesn't wish to talk about. Not just from historical remembrance of past subjects, but from their friends body language & mannerism & in fact even their clearly subdued or uninterested responses. simple as that.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I apologise for the analogy.
Ok, the problem is Christians use a non - rational approach to establish truth. I agree it may help some people. But so does Angel card reading and Tarot Cards.

So you:
1. Either accept it's non - rational.
2. Or you think it's rational.

Not everything in life can be reduced down to option 1, 2 or 3 (especially when you have the unfortunate habit of always skewing the options). I don't know why you are so obsessed with making it appear so.

seamus wrote: »

Hardly. If I was to stand at the end of someone's garden every morning and watch them leave for work, am I OK to continue doing that until I'm asked to stop? Or should I have the common sense to act in a socially acceptable way and ask for someone's permission before I act in this way?

The difference between you gawking at someone leaving for work each morning and the friends with the OP relates to motivation and familiarity. Now, you might think it's all a load of hogwash, but the friend genuinely thinks that he is sharing the most important message in life with the OP. Whether he is correct or incorrect in his approach is entirely subjective. However, given that the OP doesn't want to hear such words, he best sit down with him and have a chat.

jim o doom

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not everything in life can be reduced down to option 1, 2 or 3 (especially when you have the unfortunate habit of always skewing the options). I don't know why you are so obsessed with making it appear so.



The difference between you gawking at someone leaving for work each morning and the friends with the OP relates to motivation and familiarity. Now, you might think it's all a load of hogwash, but the friend genuinely thinks that he is sharing the most important message in life with the OP. Whether he is correct or incorrect in his approach is entirely subjective. However, given that the OP doesn't want to hear such words, he best sit down with him and have a chat.

You are correct in stating that he needs to sit down and have a word with him, because clearly an uninterested friend is not enough; you should have a quick read of my previous post - as I said earlier - they are friends & he should be well aware of what interests his friend and what does not - and even if he isn't, it is still the easiest thing in the world to tell when someone is disinterested in what you are saying, facial expression and many other things, to continue bantering on to a bored compatriot is rude. I don't geek about computers to non-geek friends, nor do I geek about motorbikes to non-bike friends, because they don't have an interest and all I'm doing is verbally masterbating about something I alone am interested in. Clearly when this goes on the ONLY option is blank refusal to talk about a subject, correct? and that in itself is rude, and one should not be forced into that by a good friend, right?

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is difference between us Jimi. I differentiate between number 2 and 3.

So do I, I just react differently to you.

I find number 2 annoying. There's something irritating with people who put you in a situation in where you have to actively refuse them.

I am not so easily irritated, and don't mind people putting me in circumstances where I can just give an answer. I don't feel awkward. I like to be at ease with people, and I like people to be at ease with me.

It's like people who have Weddings abroad and think nothing of it. They think sure if people don't want to go or can't afford it all they have to do it say No.

But what they don't realise is that some (granted not all) people might find saying No very very awkard. It doesn't matter if that awkardness is valid or not, they fact is they do. A more conscientious person wouldn't have a wedding abroad or would try to get their friends feelings on it before considering it.

As a married man, I know the thoughts, the stresses, the expense etc that goes into a wedding. Again, I am secure enough to be honest. If I couldn't afford to go abroad for a wedding, I'd say it. Most people I know that go away to get married, do so to save money. So it works both ways there. I understand why they're doing it. I don't get upset or feel awkward, and I don't think the bride and groom should have to think of everyones individual insecurities. They have enough on their plate.

Reverting back to christianity, an effective way to communicate the Christian deeds is to do remarkable deeds. For example, Fr. Peter McVerry and all the work he does for homeless people. He has dedicated his life to altruism because of his Christian faith. He rarely bible bashes but he will communicate alrusim and if he's pressed or questioned about that, he'll them communicate his Christian faith.

Great. No issues there. In fact Jesus himself, when asked how to worship said, 'look after the widows and orphans'. A good christian lives Christs teaching not just speaks it.

Sadly, the really head recking Christians, care nothing about altruism. In some cases. Their faith is almost a selfish thing, it's like look at me I'm great because I have Jesus, you could be great like me, if you believe what I believe.

How arrogant and stupid is that?

Indeed. Hypocrites I think you call them. Jesus himself condemned such people. Love is the golden rule.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not everything in life can be reduced down to option 1, 2 or 3 (especially when you have the unfortunate habit of always skewing the options). I don't know why you are so obsessed with making it appear so.

It's a fairly standard approach when trying to look at something logically.
Especially if you are trying to deconstruct a problem and analyse it.
C.S. Lewis does them same with his Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument. The problem is he does skew arguments. So he's what appears as logic is actually sophistry.

The best thing to do would be to point out how I am skewing the options.

professore

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm sorry guys I just have to interject again. What is SO BLOODY WRONG with what that guy says in His email???? It might come across as weird to someone who knew the person previously when they didn't talk like this, but to me it just sound like someone who has had a genuine change take place in their life and they are just overawed by it and possibly a little naïve as to how it relates to others but I don’t see any malice or even conceit in his words.

What's wrong is the persistent and irritating nature of someone who believes something trying to convince someone who does not. If this guy was a fervent believer in vegetarianism and had a meat-eating best friend, and every time they met the only topic of conversation was that he should stop eating meat, the friendship would be in trouble as well. It's nothing to do with evil or whatever - although the idea that there is only "one right way" has started most wars in history.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

Your analogy is weak anyway because it assumes that the lottery winnings exist.

It just shows your complete lack of understanding. This has never been about trying to prove to you that God exists. It has been trying to get people like you to have some empathy towards how the christian friend 'may' be thinking. I.E. He has a gift he wants to share with you.
.

Luckily I've never had to deal with such a friend. I can't imagine myself being able to have a friend who did act like that. All of my friends are very firmly aligned in the "I don't give a ****" category so the topic of religion rarely comes up. .

I think this paragraph just confirms your ignorance to the point being made.

seamus

JimiTime wrote: »

It just shows your complete lack of understanding. This has never been about trying to prove to you that God exists. It has been trying to get people like you to have some empathy towards how the christian friend 'may' be thinking. I.E. He has a gift he wants to share with you.

So it's empathy one way and not another? Why does the christian friend have no empathy towards how his friend is thinking? How does religious zeal somehow excuse a person from ignoring everyone else's point of view?

Let's use your analogy again - I win the lotto. I have a good friend and I'm aware that he has made it clear many many times in the past that he has no interest in money. In fact, he doesn't want any.

I would have to be a complete moron to deposit money in his account, right?

I think this paragraph just confirms your ignorance to the point being made.

Thankfully.

JimiTime

professore wrote: »

What's wrong is the persistent and irritating nature of someone who believes something trying to convince someone who does not. If this guy was a fervent believer in vegetarianism and had a meat-eating best friend, and every time they met the only topic of conversation was that he should stop eating meat, the friendship would be in trouble as well. It's nothing to do with evil or whatever - although the idea that there is only "one right way" has started most wars in history.

Again. What the hell is wrong with peoples power of communication. If my best friend became a muslim and talked about it to the extent of irritation, I'd simply communicate it to him! If he then insisted on continuing, then we'd have an issue. Everyones feelings here seems to be that 'I shouldn't have to communicate, he just shouldn't say anything'. Well boo bloomin hoo! Just open your mouth and speak! Be it to discuss it, or to tell him to shut up about it. You are friends for goodness sake! Stop think of having your rights violated etc and grow the hell up you pack of children!

If someone is being pushy, just tell them! If it continues, then do whatever you see appropriate I.E. removing yourself from their company etc. Stop whining about people trying to 'tell you how to live your life etc'. My word you're an insecure bunch.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Everyones feelings here seems to be that 'I shouldn't have to communicate, he just shouldn't say anything'. Well boo bloomin hoo! Just open your mouth and speak!

That not what I'm reading. There is more than one way to communicate, and just because the OP may or may not have said "I do not want to discuss this anymore", doesn't mean that - as a friend - his obvious discomfort with the subject matter hasn't already been made obvious and ignored.

For more see jim o doom's post previously which I thought was good.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

Let's use your analogy again - I win the lotto. I have a good friend and I'm aware that he has made it clear many many times in the past that he has no interest in money. In fact, he doesn't want any.

I would have to be a complete moron to deposit money in his account, right?

Not necessarily a moron. You may still have good motivation behind it. That aside though, you've just introduced a new dimension. A dimension which has been my arguement. I.E. COMMUNICATION. If you have made the friend aware that you are not interested, then you have a point. A point that I agree with. Simple isn't it. No toys out of the pram. No 'He's telling me how to live my life'. No 'He's forcing something down my throat'. No drama. Just a simple, honest communication of your feelings. Then if he ignores your request and continues, then you have cause for irritation.

Thankfully.

Taking pride in ignorance. Well I never.

seamus

That aside though, you've just introduced a new dimension. A dimension which has been my arguement. I.E. COMMUNICATION.

Indeed, but then remove the need for that communication. One some topics (such as religion), communication is not required; You simply don't go around telling people what you think about it, even close friends, until you're made aware that they're receptive to it. Being "made aware" can involve whatever type of communication floats your boat.

JimiTime wrote: »

Taking pride in ignorance. Well I never.

I'm thankful that I'm ignorant in so far as I've never had the misfortune of having a religious zealot for a friend. So you can make the point about his friend thinking he's hit the jackpot and wanting to share it with everyone, but I'll never understand why that excuses his behaviour.

Fanny Cradock

seamus wrote: »

Why does the christian friend have no empathy towards how his friend is thinking? How does religious zeal somehow excuse a person from ignoring everyone else's point of view?

Maybe because he doesn't realise that his enthusiasm is causing such distress to his friend or, indeed, all manner of ructions on the internetz.

seamus wrote: »

I'm thankful that I'm ignorant in so far as I've never had the misfortune of having a religious zealot for a friend.

I've never had a religious zealot for a friend either.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

That not what I'm reading. There is more than one way to communicate, and just because the OP may or may not have said "I do not want to discuss this anymore", doesn't mean that - as a friend - his obvious discomfort with the subject matter hasn't already been made obvious and ignored.

For more see jim o doom's post previously which I thought was good.

That is an assumption though. Alot people have problems with discussing things of depth. Body language or not, I think people should speak plainly. Be them Christian or otherwise. I also think people should be considerate, Christian or otherwise. Sometimes we may find people a bit inconsiderate, but maybe we should realise, that we're all guilty at some stage.

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed. Hypocrites I think you call them. Jesus himself condemned such people. Love is the golden rule.

Jimi, Can you answer this question when you get a chance:
Would you agree that smoker number 3 is being more conscientious than smoker number 2?

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

That is an assumption though.

As is the assumption that the OP hasn't made it obvious. Alas since the OPs departure, assumptions are all we have to go on.

JimiTime

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, but then remove the need for that communication. One some topics (such as religion), communication is not required; You simply don't go around telling people what you think about it, even close friends, until you're made aware that they're receptive to it. Being "made aware" can involve whatever type of communication floats your boat.

And your reaction would be to your best friend becoming a christian and sharing his testimony with you would be?

a) Bitching to other friends about him.

b) Discussing it with him, and trying to understand why the change.

c) Telling him he's talking BS and showing him the true atheist light.

d) Telling him you don't want to know, and you really don't want it brought up again.

e) Telling him you are p!ssed off with him for sharing his views with you, liken him to a scumbag (as you mentioned earlier).

f) other: Please explain.

Remember, imagine your best friend doing this. What would you do?

I'm thankful that I'm ignorant in so far as I've never had the misfortune of having a religious zealot for a friend.

Like FC, neither have I.

So you can make the point about his friend thinking he's hit the jackpot and wanting to share it with everyone, but I'll never understand why that excuses his behaviour.

Its not meant to. Its meant to help you understand it.

Green Grocer: That fecker just stole a bag of apples.

Fecker in question has 3 starving kids, her husband gambles and she didn't know what to do, so she grabbed a bag of apples. It was wrong, but we empathise with why she did it. Or would you just say 'lock her up'?

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Jimi, Can you answer this question when you get a chance:
Would you agree that smoker number 3 is being more conscientious than smoker number 2?

No, not really. I think its too simplistic. Its all about motivation.

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

As is the assumption that the OP hasn't made it obvious. Alas since the OPs departure, assumptions are all we have to go on.

Assumptions or not, I still think there should be no problem with merely expressing how we feel clearly.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Assumptions or not, I still think there should be no problem with merely expressing how we feel clearly.

I thought everyone was in agreement that the OP should be clear with his friend.